Comments Locked

68 Comments

Back to Article

  • stephenbrooks - Monday, August 19, 2019 - link

    A reasonably priced PC that can play games... has the world become SANE?
  • FreckledTrout - Monday, August 19, 2019 - link

    Nope. Intel is having to compete for the first time in over a decade.
  • imaheadcase - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    What are you on about? The have traditionally been Intel systems from Dell gaming setups. lol
  • AdditionalPylons - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    I assume he refers to the fact that Intel now delivers better value because the competition from AMD has increased dramatically.
  • willis936 - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    If that truly is the case I wonder what world they're living in.

    https://pcpartpicker.com/trends/price/cpu/
  • Phynaz - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    How’s that? Intel hasn’t changed prices.
  • Samus - Wednesday, August 21, 2019 - link

    They've been forced to update their product stack across the board to deliver more cores for the same money. Coffee Lake alone resulted in nearly a DOUBLE (that is 100%) performance increase in multithreaded tasks on just their ultra mobile SKUs.

    This would have never happened if the eminent threat from AMD wasn't.
  • RaistlinZ - Monday, August 19, 2019 - link

    We'll have to wait and see. It says the systems will "start" at $629.99. The lowest spec CPU listed is an i3-9100 and lowest GPU is an RX560X. If that's what you get for $629.99 then it's grossly overpriced, unless a nice monitor is included.
  • kpb321 - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    You forgot to include that's apparently 8gb of memory in single channel mode and with a 1tb HD or 256gb SSD for storage (not sure which one will be the base option there) and a 360W power supply. Not to mention upgrading the $100 video card to the $275 video card will cost you $300 for the upgrade and might require also spending +$100 for the upgraded PS making the total upgrade another $400.
  • eek2121 - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    Also a Windows 10 license for the 10% who don't already have one.
  • khanikun - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    From Dell's website

    $629

    i3 9100
    Win 10 Home
    Radeon RX 560X
    360W chassis with blue led
    1 x 6 GB DDR4 2400
    1 x 1 TB 7200 rpm SATA hdd
    Qualcomm DW1810 802.11ac Wifi + Bluetooth 4.2
    Dell MS116 mouse
    Dell KB216 keyboard
    1 year mail-in support
    1 year McAfee LiveSafe

    That's it. No monitor. It sounds overpriced, but you'd be hard pressed to actually build something to match it at that price. Now, you could find something else from another OEM.

    Newegg has an ABS Warrior comp. Ryzen 5 1600, GTX 1060, 8 GB memory, 480 GB SSD, Win 10 Home, keyboard, mouse, case, and 400w PSU for $600. Miss out on wifi/bluetooth, but who cares.
  • liu_d - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    https://pcpartpicker.com/list/Zbvr9J

    Not too hard pressed. I'm under $600 all in, and that's with a better PSU, case, video card, and double the RAM.
  • eek2121 - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    If you drop the Windows 10 license that gives another $100 to throw at the GPU. Honestly though, current Core i3s aren't a good value IMO. For around the same price you can get a Ryzen 5 2600 with 6 cores and 12 threads.
  • Dug - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    Some people do value support.
  • khanikun - Wednesday, August 21, 2019 - link

    I'm guessing prices change on the fly in lists, cause I'm seeing the total as $641.24, after $40 mail-in rebates. I also don't think the i3 is good value, why I suggested the ABS Warrior on Newegg. Although, I know nothing about this ABS company.
  • DanNeely - Monday, August 19, 2019 - link

    Don't forget in a relatively subdued chassis.
  • Irata - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    With a 4C / 4T CPU, 8 GB single channel RAM, a 7,200 RPM hdd and an RX560 and a weak power supply...that makes it a gaming PC compared to a basic office PC but that's it.
  • Jeff72 - Monday, August 19, 2019 - link

    Available 8/19 (today) but no link on Dell's own web site...search doesn't find it yet .
  • StevoLincolnite - Monday, August 19, 2019 - link

    Might have been more interesting if there was some Ryzen options...
  • utferris - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    Another Intel PC? No, thanks.
    Decent people buy AMD.
  • imaheadcase - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    "cheap" is the word you are looking for, not decent.
  • alufan - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    "cheap"
    clearly you are a fool to believe that your getting better value by buying from intel, they have relentlessly driven up prices and margins for years at the cost of fools like yourself and not rewarded you by providing the best product available for the money, AMD with less than a third of the budget has come along and wiped the floor with intel, yes they may have a couple of slightly faster benchmarks on the intel side, but in the real world where most of us live AMD is very much the far superior processor both in terms of speed and options for the price not to mention the fact you have PCIe4, it seems the majority of folks agree with me as well as yet again AMD have topped the sales charts in pretty much most retailers and etailers, Dell of course are staunch intel supporters and I suspect have a very lucrative rebate as at this point they dont even list the worlds fastest consumer processors (note I never said games benchmark).
    As an obvious intel supporter even you should be applauding and perhaps buying an AMD system to ensure the pressure stays on intel AND AMD to keep pushing the envelope and each other to better products because lets face it we all benefit in that scenario.
  • AshlayW - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    Wish there was an comments Karma system here. You get my +1

    I'm so sick of the AMD is cheap mentality, Ryzen has conquered Intel Performance, efficiency, and value, all together.

    The real champion is the 3600, and I would love to have seen it offered in these PCs, it even allows entry level content creation and CAD, rendering and such, vastly better than the Intel price equavilant.
  • Cliff34 - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    AMD needs to be 'cheap' in order to compete w Intel. They may have better value chips but Intel still dominates the market. The key is whether AMD is making a healthy profit from their pricing. If they can cont to do so and be cheap and offer good cpus... Why not? Better for us consumers!
  • eek2121 - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    Current AMD CPUs are neither cheap nor are the latest gen motherboards, but they are selling just fine.
  • AlyxSharkBite - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    I wouldn’t call the $6k spent on my Threadripper Build cheap. Why would I buy a Skylake-X over a Threadripper? I went with the 2950X the Intel equivalent is the 9960X which is a thousand dollars more for 5-7% better performance. That’d be a stupid investment. Especially with less PCIe lanes, having to pay extra for the NVMe RAID. No thanks I’ll pass on that.
  • khanikun - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    Build for what you use it for. I game and the rest of it, I do light duty work. Watching videos or web browsing. Intel with it's less cores and higher speed simply work better in my situation.

    If I was doing more multi threaded work, I would have gone AMD. I'm on an 8086 and see no need to move to a 9th gen or Ryzen 3rd gen. Maybe one day I'll decide to build an AMD box for a VM host server, but it won't be happening this generation.

    For those that do lots of multi threaded work, this must be a great time. AMD has really nice pricing and is really pushing Intel to release higher core count procs. No matter which side of the boat you're on, there's something for those kind of users.
  • AshlayW - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    But ryzen 3000 has the same single threaded Performance as intel currently?

    Intel has maybe a single digits advantage in single, from pure clocks, at the expense of vastly inferior efficiency and features, upgradability and value.

    Sorry but your argument doesn't really work for same people.
  • blppt - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    The problem being that if you want the best gaming perfomance today, single core/thread performance still matters the most (assuming equivalent core count) and since it is very difficult to overclock a ryzen 3xxx to match the 4.7/4.8/5.0 clocks of the 9900K (soon to be 5 across the board for 9900KS, whenever they decide to actually release it), Intel still wins for gaming.

    The (equivalent, price-wise) Ryzen 3xxx pretty much wins everything else though, i'll agree there.
  • Korguz - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    blppt.
    you are forgetting one point. the ryzen cpus... use quite a bit less power then the 9900k, which it needs to use to get you that performance. cap an intel cpu at the power useage intel states.. and your performance.... goes down the toilet.
  • blppt - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    "you are forgetting one point. the ryzen cpus... use quite a bit less power then the 9900k, which it needs to use to get you that performance. cap an intel cpu at the power useage intel states.. and your performance.... goes down the toilet."

    The point being that you CAN reach those speeds with the 9900K/KS OOB, whereas it is a very iffy proposition to overclock a 3700/3900 to 4.7/4.8/5.0---in which you may also be sacrificing stability to do so. Going back a ways to the highly flawed BD/PD line, the 9590 for example, failed not because it was a 220W monster, it was because it was a 220W monster that couldn't beat the equivalent i7s at the time whilst using that much electricity. The 9900K/KS can be better in gaming OOB than the equivalent Ryzen 3xxx, albeit drawing more electricity.
  • Korguz - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    not argueing that.. but.. is the extra power usage, better cooling ( which intels cpus.. do not come with a cooler at all) and higher price tag worth it ?
    ryzen 3000 series is pretty much on par with intel on IPC at the clocks it runs at, how much worse will it look if ryzen 3000 were able to hit the same clocks ?

    with PD/BD people ridiculed amd for its power usage.. but now.. that intels power usage is worse.. it seems most people are ok with it.. how does that work ??
  • blppt - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    "with PD/BD people ridiculed amd for its power usage.. but now.. that intels power usage is worse."

    Well, Intel's best consumer chip, (i guess the 9980XE?), doesn't draw a TDP of 220W like the 9590 did. Granted, it doesn't show up well against the much newer 3900X, which has a 60W less TDP and generally benches higher on single thread performance, but it also has 6 more physical cores to power. The 9590 vs the 4770K/4790K was a difference of like 110W for 4 much weaker physical cores to power.

    The non 9590 PD/BD was particularly pathetic in single core/thread performance whilst eating tons of wattage, meaning that it was extra bad for the time of its release.

    Not that Cinebench R15 is the be-all/end-all but the BEST case scenario (9590 boosting to 5ghz), it would score a very low ~130 on the single core test, whereas the equivalent intel, either 4770K or 4790K would be in the 160s/170s, using far, far less power. And that was the best of PD/BD---turboing theoretically to 5ghz on one core.

    Trust me, I had a 9590 for a couple of years, it was a blast furnace that didn't really do anything as well as my 4790K, but it was fun to try and get some cooling system that could tame the beast.

    Intel is falling behind on efficiency, agreed, but nowheres near as bad as BD/PD could be. Or Intel's own blast furnace Prescott P4.
  • Korguz - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    blppt
    " Well, Intel's best consumer chip, (i guess the 9980XE?), doesn't draw a TDP of 220W like the 9590 did. " actually, maybe it does, and maybe more then 220 watts : https://www.anandtech.com/show/13544/why-intel-pro... not sure if this relates to intels latest cpus though. intels TDP ratings, seem more like a minimum then a max.
  • blppt - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    "actually, maybe it does, and maybe more then 220 watts : "

    If you want to go there, so did the 9590 IRL. I'm going by TDP ratings.
  • Korguz - Wednesday, August 21, 2019 - link

    :-) yes but the difference was.. amd advertised it as such, didnt they ? intel, says theirs is a 95 watt cpu, quite the difference, correct ?
  • blppt - Wednesday, August 21, 2019 - link

    "yes but the difference was.. amd advertised it as such, didnt they ?"

    They advertised it (the 9590) as a 220W TDP cpu and IRL it could use more than that. Sounds a lot like your example for Intel, no?

    I'll grant you this: the 9590 was in the end a laughably bad idea for a cpu, and a niche product really, not really indicitive of the mainstream parts, although the mainstream models suffered from similar issues (just not to the extreme like this one) of pathetic single thread performance and higher power consumption than the equivalent Intel cpus of the time.

    If memory serves, the power consumption had a lot to do with BD/PD/derivatives being stuck on 32nm for the longest time (intel had been 22nm and below since Ivy Bridge), although while that may have helped with the power consumption, the entire BD/PD line was crippled by its poor single thread performance. We saw that hitting the "5ghz ceiling" as it were still left the 9590 far behind Intel in this crucial field. A move to 22nm may have lowered TDP and allowed mainstream parts to be sold at 5ghz, but that still wouldn't have helped much in solving BD/PD flaws for performance.

    Intel seemingly is starting to suffer from the same issues, amusingly as AMD did back then---stuck on 14nm for the longest time, with 10nm just arriving shortly, but the difference now is that they still are competitive in single thread/single core performance (or slightly better), and the 'power consumption per performance' excess is currently not as bad as things were with the 9590.
  • Korguz - Wednesday, August 21, 2019 - link

    it does sound similar to my example :-) never payed attention to the 9590 as it wasnt a cpu i was interested in, but after doing a little search.. dang.. sure did suck the power from the wall depending on what it was doing, didn't it ? but the question still stands, amd got flack and ridiculed for its power consumption then, ( stated, or actual ) but it seems, intel, isn't getting the same flack or ridicule. go figure
  • blppt - Thursday, August 22, 2019 - link

    Yes, I agree with most of that, but what you aren't grasping here is that while AMD was sucking more power (and in the case of the 9590, a LOT more power) they were also coming up VERY short in everyday performance, especially in single thread situations, which gaming and general mainstream computing tasks back then (and to this day) puts a great premium on.

    And the thing the BD/PD was supposed to be great at (highly multi-threaded optimized workloads), had very little application in mainstream tasks at the time, and the 9590 wasn't in actuality appreciably faster than my 4790K in those few applicable highly-threaded tasks anyways.

    So, while yes, Intel has now become the 'piggy' of power draw, their performance is still competitive and in some cases, superior. Thats why the BD/PD era and Intel's current issues aren't ridiculed equally---its not totally similar.

    For their to be a true parallel here---AMD would have had to make a quantum leap *past* Intel in single thread performance (they haven't) and intel's flagship cpu would have had to draw something along the lines of 200+% of the wattage (9590 vs 4770/4790K) of AMD's flagship (they haven't).
  • Korguz - Friday, August 23, 2019 - link

    blppt actually, i am.. while intel uses more power, its being used for something, unlike the BD/PD cores :-)

    i think intel should be ridiculed, specially when a cpu is listed as using XX watts, but when in use, and to get the performance intel claims, is uses 50-100 watts more. hypothetically, if i didnt know much about computers. and went out, bought a new comp, and spent the extra money on a cooler ( cause intel doesn't include one ) for a certain wattage, only to find the comp didn't have the performance it is supposed to, and then find out the cooler i bought wasn't sufficient enough, i would be pretty pissed
  • Phynaz - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    But wait, I thought AMD wasn’t cheap. Make up your mind
  • khanikun - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    I wasn't making an argument for other people. I said "Build for what you use it for", then I said why I built what I did and why I don't see any point for me to move to 9th gen Intel or Ryzen 3rd gen.
  • AshlayW - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    Nah. Go shill somewhere else bud, AMD have the Performance crown now, single core too essentially, and Intel's entire lineup is again exposed as the overpriced, Apple-esque garbage it is.
  • damianrobertjones - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    OMG! CPU shaming!!
  • HStewart - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    This one reasons why I refused to purchase AMD, I knew once I saw that the machine had Intel, we will get a stupid messaging stating it should be AMD.

    You might think I am Intel fan boy, I just don't care for AMD because of this attitude. Intel is not perfect but at least it appears to be with comments like. Intel actually has not done anything with me - except had 30 years of successful computers.
  • Korguz - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    and it SHOULD of been, HStewart, but your intel fanaticism, prevents you from seeing this AND buying the currently BETTER cpu. face it, AMD has the better cpu over all now, and is priced better then what intel charges, plain and simple.

    " You might think I am Intel fan boy," no.. most here KNOW you are an intel fan boy. intel isnt perfect ?? FAR from it, when it cant win by legal means, it resorts to bribes, and threats. when there is no competition, it stagnates the market.
    "Intel actually has not done anything with me - except had 30 years of successful computers. " except over charge for its cpus, give you measly what was it? <10% performance gains over the last few years, and stick the mainstream with quad core cpus for how long??

    let me ask you this, even though i KNOW you wont reply with an answer to this question. with Rome now out, and by the looks of it, way better then the Xeon line as a whole, while charging substantially LESS then the xeon, in some cases HALF THE PRICE. what would you buy ?? my guess, intel, as again, your blind intel fanatic fanboyism, prevents you from getting anything else, and your " I just don't care for AMD because of this attitude" is just BS, as YOUR attitude towards amd, and ALWAYS praising intel, and trying to make intel look better then it currently is right now, shows how much of an intel fanboy you are.
  • HStewart - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    You can have your choice, but don't force your choice on others - that is why I hate AMD. It maybe not the company it self - but fanboy are the worst - they attack the opposition and make me want to puke.

    One your Rome question, it does not matter too much, it good that AMD is pushing Intel to be more competitive, but are really sure that people will buy instead of Intel Xeons. Intel needed a kick in butt with Skylake line but lets be honest. How many companies upgrade there computers - my work has been using same computers in store for a decade.

    I have a seem more than a 10% increase in my XPS 15 CPU than previous - y50. and both are quad cores. I am not sure I need more than quad cores. I wish computer manufactures optimized the disks which will give more performance gain. SSD's have help.
  • Korguz - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    " You can have your choice, but don't force your choice on others - that is why I hate AMD. " like you try to do your self ? no.. because you are an intel fanboy

    " they attack the opposition and make me want to puke. " and the way you defend intel at all costs.. makez me want to puke.

    that didnt answer the question.. like i KNEW you would.. bottom line.. you would STILL buy intel.. thats fact
  • Dug - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    "you would STILL buy intel."

    And guess what? That's ok. You really need to take a chill pill and relax.
    There's really no reason to get upset about what someone purchases.
    You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 2 comparably priced cpu's anyway until you saw benchmark results. People don't get work done benchmarking.
  • HStewart - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    Also keep in mind, I have move away from desktop and primary mobile with laptops.
  • Xyler94 - Wednesday, August 21, 2019 - link

    Hypothetically speaking, if AMD released a CPU that completely outperforms Intel in every metric possible, would you still pick Intel?

    My issue with you is that you don't give credit where credit is due. You can like Intel all you want, heck I still like a few of their products too, but to say you hate AMD simply because people tell you that you should buy one is the most hypocritical thing you've ever said. And you've said some pretty interesting things (1 SunnyCove Core = 2 Zen2 cores, that was a good one). You literally champion for Intel, telling people never buy anything but Intel, and yet you hate when AMD fans say not to buy AMD stuff.

    You are so blinded by your stance that you can't even see your own hypocrisy. With an unbiased look, tell me why I should choose the core i9 9900k over the Ryzen 9 3900x.

    Here's why you should buy the 9900k:
    -Absolute Gaming performance... when looking at 1080p high with an RTX 2080ti (And even then, talking about an average of 5FPS, with bests of 10)
    -Best core clock speeds.

    Here's why to buy the Ryzen 9 3900x:
    -PCIe 4.0 Support
    -More cores, better multi-threading
    -Better per-clock IPC
    -Power efficient
    -No AVX clock speed offset needed

    So if absolute clocks and gaming is your needs, then Intel wins. If you need more, it's the Ryzen. It's that simple. And let's not even mention the multitude of Speculative Instruction flaws in the Intel chips that make people disable Hyperthreading, something you pay a premium for on Intel...
  • Qasar - Wednesday, August 21, 2019 - link

    Xyler94, i'll save you the trouble, going by his previous posts, " Hypothetically speaking, if AMD released a CPU that completely outperforms Intel in every metric possible, would you still pick Intel " yes he would, no contest.

    your 2nd paragraph, 100% true
    your 3rd paragraph, he cant be cause he can't be unbiased, he worships intel above all else.

    as for the 9900k vs 3900x, he would recommend the 9900k, even if the 3900x cost less, only cause its intel, and that's all he sees. no matter what.
  • Valantar - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    Price is good. Proprietary motherboard and power supply (or is that TFX?) are not.
  • khanikun - Wednesday, August 21, 2019 - link

    Ya, I always hated that about Dell. Before I started building computers, I had an old Dell. I went to replace the heatsink and the thing used some weird proprietary ratchet mechanism. That or the power supply was normal ATX, but the bolt mounts were different. So you had to drill the case or the psu case to be able to mount it. Or zip tie it in place, like I did.

    Dell is all over the place with it too. One minute, it's proprietary. Next minute, it's not.
  • AshlayW - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    9th gen when ryzen 3000 is available?

    Gonna pass, Dell. I don't buy garbage.
  • 29a - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    "Dell emphasizes that its compact G5 desktop is completely user-upgradeable"

    That motherboard is not upgradable, it's proprietary as hell. Look at the bunch of IO connectors on the front.
  • schujj07 - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    9900K + RTX 2080 all on a 460W PSU??? That is some wishful thinking there. Load wattage is 450W, granted you will never have 100% usage across everything but still that is a bad idea to be that close to the max on your PSU.

    80mm fan CPU cooler for 95W TDP! That is a great way to throttle your i9 or even have it burn up.

    Dell didn't do a very good job designing this thing to be able to last more than a couple months while gaming.
  • Korguz - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    those chips, can use up to 200 watts ALONE, forget the rest of the system....
  • Dug - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    You aren't looking at the top of the line picture there.
    Dell routinely uses different heatsinks and fans for different configurations.
  • schujj07 - Wednesday, August 21, 2019 - link

    Well that top picture is nothing more than a huge heatsink but no fan attached to it. Going off of their specification list it says CPU Cooler (65W or 95W). While the i9's TDP is 95W it will regularly go double that.
  • PeachNCream - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    One of the outgrowths of competition in the PSU space is that people have been spending the last decade setting some unusual expectations with regards to what is actually necessary in terms of power supply output. Granted, I do agree that 460W seems a tad lean, but a 500W PSU would be perfectly adequate for the job without suffering from numbers bloat. Though, if Dell is willing to offer an extended warranty of their computer with a 460W supply, I'm pretty sure I would just get the extra warranty and not lose any sleep over the numbers.
  • Phynaz - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link

    Agreed
  • RSAUser - Wednesday, August 21, 2019 - link

    460W is a tad lean? A 1070 is 150W, a 3600 is 65W, then the rest of it combined maybe another 30W or so, and without taking into account that at no point will any of those parts actually all draw max at the same time as one would bottleneck the other, you'd at most need a 250W PSU, with efficiency curve at ~70%, 420W is already an overkill. Anything ~350W and more is good enough for most modern hardware, I don't understand the obsession.

    Even if you're going Intel with like 120W at max draw for most consumer parts, you'd still easily be able to go with a ~400W PSU.

    Actually measure your power draw from the wall, then put it on a simulated max workload and check the draw, then check while running e.g. games that will pretty much never reach simulated level. 500W is overkill for anything, "modern" (I use loosely as anything pretty much post sandy bridge, 900 series/not really AMD post 200 series) consumer level.
  • schujj07 - Wednesday, August 21, 2019 - link

    @RSAUser you are using numbers from 2 components that aren't even on the customization list. Intel i9-9900K will hit 180W, RTX 2080 is 215W with a peak of over 300W, there are blue LEDs are a few watts, and the other stuff is 30W. That will make the power draw 430W easily with possibly more requested. Not to mention this is going to be a low quality unit so this isn't a good idea of putting a 9900k and RTX 2080 into this system.
  • sbopk - Wednesday, August 21, 2019 - link

    wow awesome

    https://bit.ly/2ZPL1fZ

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now